Bennett v. Harkrader
158 U.S. 441 (1895)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Bennett v. Harkrader, 158 U.S. 441 (1895)

Bennett v. Harkrader

No. 58

Argued March 26-27, 1895

Decided May 24, 1895

158 U.S. 441


The location certificate in this case, though defective in form, was properly introduced for the purpose of showing the time when the possession was taken, and to point out, as far as it might, the property which was taken possession of.

The instructions complained of properly presented to the jury the two ultimate questions to be decided by it.

In Oregon a general verdict for the plaintiff, where the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of certain described property which is unlawfully detained by the defendant, and the possession of which the plaintiff prays to recover, is sufficient.

William Bennett, for himself and as the administrator of M. Gibbons, deceased, having made application in the United States land office at Sitka, Alaska, for a patent to what is known as the Aurora lode mining claim, the defendant in error, George Harkrader, filed an adverse claim in that office, and subsequently, under the authority of § 2326, Rev.Stat., commenced in the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska this action in support of such claim. After answer and reply, the case came on for trial, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, to review which judgment the defendant sued out this writ of error. The plaintiff

Page 158 U. S. 442

was the owner of certain mining claims known as the Bulger Hill and Nugget Gulch placer mining claims. The description of the former in the complaint is as follows:

"Commencing at post No. 10 of the U.S. survey known and recorded as the Bulger Hill survey, whence United States mineral monument No. 2, duly established by United States survey and recorded as a permanent monument, bears north, seventy-six degrees (76

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.